The court concluded that a landlord does not need formal attornment to establish a tenant's obligation after property transfer, emphasizing the need must be bona fide.

Order :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The instant civil revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 24.08.2011 (decree singed on 03.09.2011) passed by the Court of Sub-Judge-V, Hazaribagh in Eviction Suit No.11 of 1998 whereby and whereunder, the suit filed under Section 11 (1)(c) and (e) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred as 'The Act of 1982') has been decreed in favour of plaintiff and the defendant/petitioners have been directed to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of order and to handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff, failing which, the plaintiff shall be entitled to evict the defendant from the suit premises through the process of the Court.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that plaintiff purchased the suit property by registered sale deed No. 11835 dated 13/14.12.1994 from Sri Krishnan Jaiswal, Advocate, Hazaribagh, thereby acquired absolute ownership, right, title, interest and possession over the property. It is further alleged that before purchase of the suit property including the premises, the defendant was an existing tenant under the vendor of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.28/- payable according to the English calendar month and had paid rent until December 1994. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant was duly informed and acknowledged the change of ownership, thereby recognizing the plaintiff as his landlady, but failed to pay rent from January 1995 onward, thus becoming a defaulter. The plaintiff further claims bona fide personal necessity for the suit premises, stating the property is century-old, built with mud walls and local tiles, lacks basic amenities such as urinal and latrine and is in a dilapidated and unsafe condition, requiring complete reconstruction, which is not feasible without eviction. It is further alleged that the defendant has a separate residential house and is not residing in the said suit premises and initially sought time till 31.03.1995 to vacate, which was granted, followed by another extension till 30.06.1995 on compassionate grounds. However, the defendant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent from January 1995. Hence, the suit was filed under Sections 11 (1)(c) and (e) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

4. The defendant appeared and filed his written statement and the plea of defendant in his written statement is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and was filed in conspiracy with Krishna Jaiswal to illegally take over the suit property. Defendant stated that the case should not proceed because an earlier case (Title Suit No. 113 of 1996) involving the same property and parties, is still pending in the Munsif Court, Hazaribagh. The defendant explained that Krishna Jaiswal was the original owner, had agreed to sell the house to defendant’s son, Ramendra Kumar Agrawal, in the year 1993 and even took an advance payment, with a written and notarized agreement. Despite repeated requests to finalize the sale, Krishna Jaiswal failed to execute the sale deed. Instead, he fraudulently executed a sale deed in favor of Rekha Jaiswal, his own relative, without informing the defendant or his son. The defendant pleaded that this sale deed is bogus, fraudulent and without consideration, made solely to defeat his son's legal right under the earlier agreement. The defendant also state